This article has been reproduced in a new format and may be missing content or contain faulty links. Contact wiredlabs@wired.com to report an issue.

Literally within hours of its appearance, reactions began arriving via email, fax, and phone from all parts of the globe. In The New York Times and The Washington Post, Joy's essay was recognized as a landmark publishing event, a judgment affirmed by countless online publications, newspapers, magazines, and television networks in America and abroad. The Times of London reported that the article "is being compared to Einstein's 1939 letter to President Roosevelt alerting him to the possibility of a nuclear bomb."

Joy, cofounder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, is one of the most influential figures in computing: a pioneer of the Internet, godfather of Unix, architect of software systems such as Java and Jini. That a scientist of his stature had chosen to confront with such candor the threats accompanying the benefits of 21st-century technologies made for more than a slew of headlines. It sparked a dialogue that has already been joined by business and technology leaders, members of Congress and President Clinton's inner circle, Nobelists and theologians, educators, artists, and schoolchildren.

What Bill Joy started in Wired's pages is one of the most essential conversations of this new century. On the Net and in the policy arena, in universities and communities large and small, the debate he provoked has been vigorous – and occasionally contentious. Which is as it should be. We are in the very early stages of understanding not only the promise but also the grave perils of genetic engineering, nanotech, and robotics, and we need to look carefully at what kind of future these technologies might deliver us. We live in an ever more complex world, in which the scale of change is vast and its acceleration rapid, yet most people have never before been so uninvolved in technological and scientific development. But who says we are incapable of thinking in new ways and addressing the hard questions ahead?

The overwhelming outpouring of intelligence and energy in response to Joy's essay – as reflected in the sampling that follows – is one powerful indication that people are up to the challenge. They've discussed the article's ideas with strangers on airplanes and the subway. They've urged their parents to read it. They've assigned their students to write papers on it. They've offered their time and money to help spread the word about the issues it raises. They've passed around the URL (www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04). They've proposed conferences and forums, requested reprints (nonprofits and educational institutions can receive free reprints by faxing +1 (970) 920 6542; reprints can be purchased by emailing reprints@wiredmag.com), and begun preparing what promises to be a tidal wave of published reactions. Many readers express immense gratitude to Joy for giving their fears and anxieties a voice; others object to certain passages; still others disagree with almost everything he wrote. But everyone has responded with equal, and remarkable, passion. To help keep the conversation thriving, we've established an email address, whythefuture@wiredmag.com, so that readers can receive updates and alerts on issues and events related to the article, and to GNR technologies in general. We hope you'll join the ongoing discussion.

For that, ultimately, is the goal. Near the end of his essay, Joy expressed his desire to keep talking about these issues, responsibly and seriously, "in settings not predisposed to fear or favor technology for its own sake." Wired's fundamental mission is to be one such setting: a forum for new ideas and arguments, frequently celebrating the revolutions occurring in science and technology, but never afraid to explore any troubling implications as well. Obviously, we don't have all the answers, but we do know some of the best and most important questions. As the future rushes up to meet us, we intend to keep asking them.

Alex Vella, applications engineer, Protocol: Bill Joy has created the most profound, thought-provoking document in recent history. If this isn't Nobel Prize thinking, then there isn't any meaning in the Nobel Prize. The reading of "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" should be made mandatory in universities throughout the world.

Robyn Miller, cocreator, Myst and Riven: I've come away hopeful; I suddenly feel that maybe there's a chance we will not go on ignoring this gigantic pink elephant that's standing in the middle of the room! We talk and talk about all these wonderful, beautiful things that we will accomplish this century, but no one seriously mentions that it may very well be our last. I am not frightened by technology. But I am sometimes frightened by "us," by humankind. I am awed, but frightened. Because we are mostly ignorant, but we're incredibly powerful! Like a machine, going on and on, we grow more and more powerful every day. It's a dizzying sort of power and if we have it – and if there's money to be made or people to be conquered – we will use it. That's our history. That's what we inevitably end up doing.

Doug Ellis, communications director, Aspen Research Group: More than fear, I felt inspired that one of our country's greatest minds was sounding the alarm, and drawing on inspiration from as far afield as Henry David Thoreau and the Dalai Lama in the process. To me, it was a harbinger of the future synthesis of science and spirit.

Greg Weller, Web developer, Cuyahoga County Public Library: I think that Joy should heed the tag line of the Sun Microsystems ad in the same issue: "Please, if you do not take part, at least have the good sense to get out of the way." Personally, I'll side with the techno-utopia, live-forever-in-a-silicon-body faction.

Scott McNealy, CEO, Sun Microsystems: Bill Joy has helped create some of the top networking technologies on the planet. He has made a habit of predicting and inventing the future. Nearly 20 years before almost anyone else, he knew the world would be built around the Internet. Given his track record, maybe we all need to spend more time thinking about the issues he addressed in Wired.

Joe Martin, social worker, Pike Market Medical Center: Can the alarm raised by Joy bring about a serious reconsideration of these rapidly evolving technologies? Many others long before Joy have expressed similar concerns, all to no effect. As Joy himself admits, the pursuit of these extraordinary techniques is intoxicating, and the financial rewards for their successful implementation have proven staggering. Still, one would think that the preservation of humanity might cause at least some members of the human family to take Joy's call to attention quite seriously.

Leslie Berlowitz, executive officer, American Academy of Arts and Sciences: We plan to organize serious studies at the Academy that will look long term at the issues Bill Joy has raised, and the consequences of these emerging technologies.

Peter Trei, software engineer, RSA Security: This article is manna from heaven to those who would further centralize and tighten control over people, and will undoubtedly be cited by those who would restrict privacy and anonymity.

Jeanne DesForges, associate VP, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter: I made the mistake first thing this morning in my office of printing an online copy of the article. I was, am, and will be profoundly and unexpectedly affected, sitting here embarrassingly almost in tears. By necessity a technology end user, now I know why, looking out, I am more than a little sad – and apprehensive.

Marc Schultz, translator, Japan: Just when I have absolutely, irrevocably decided to let my subscription lapse because I'm totally sick and tired of all the dot-com, IPO, nerd-billionaire crap you've been filling your in-between-the-ad pages with lately, you go and print the important Bill Joy article. Time to think again.

Ervin Kreutter, independent researcher, Ervin Erwin Edward: It took guts to print the Bill Joy article in a world that sleeps as soundly as this one. It was a service to this country and the planet. But it'll take more than words to make a difference.

Sir Harold Kroto, chair, The Vega Science Trust, and 1996 Nobel laureate: I share Bill Joy's apprehension. The only realistic long-term check-and-balance that we can maintain over our rapidly developing technologies is to provide ongoing education of policymakers and the public.

Pamela M. Moteles, student, Bucks County Community College: Bravo for exposing the potentially damaging effects of unethical technology and the self-serving utopianism that has infected the cyberculture. We can still have a great future with machines if we proceed with intelligence.

Jennifer R. Pournelle, managing editor, Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, University of California: Joy's warning, of course, needs to be broadcast far and wide. But it utterly underestimates the power not of technology as we know it but of Joy's own mind. He can weave together these disparate, dark threads into one, big, gray, gooey cloud of angst; we can imagine this cloying vision and fear for our future. But in reality, we still don't have bug-free word processing software. We can't get one lander safely onto Mars. My HMO needs four people to process one $50 insurance claim. We are a very long way indeed from the seamless integration of the categories of technology needed to precipitate Joy's apocalypse.

Marshall Wieland, product marketing manager, Exodus Communications: One of the most curious and subtle points in Joy's argument is the speed with which we are approaching a point of "critical mass." I recall the words of J. Robert Oppenheimer from his translation of The Bhagavad Gita following the Trinity test: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

I too hope that in the midst of this economic slipstream we can come to realize that technological innovation is not without cost or consequence.

Bruce Sterling, author, Distraction: It's a good, healthy development to see some übergeek guy come out of the obscurantist shadows, step right up to the public podium like a responsible adult, and bluntly come up with a moral crisis and a personal confession.The guy is genuinely troubled by a matter of some public import. He's looked for historical precursors and a deeper understanding; he's tried to grasp how other people in the technical elite have confronted similar moral challenges. I think he hit on a very apt role model with Oppenheimer. It seems to me that Bill Joy is having an "I am Death, the destroyer of worlds" moment well before the skunk works team sets off the giant chain reaction out in the desert. I strongly approve of this approach on his part; clearly you should always have the moral crisis first. I think this demonstrates actual progress in the handling of potent technologies.

Gregory Stock, director, Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society, UCLA School of Medicine: Joy muses that we'd be so much safer if only "we could agree, as a species, what we wanted, where we were headed." Does he seriously imagine people would somehow agree to forgo advanced technology without some prior disaster?

Joy's article is long on hand-wringing, but short on any practical approach to mitigate the problems he posits. It should be obvious that there will be no consensus on this issue, so the only feasible way of seriously delaying these technologies would be to impose an intrusive totalitarian solution globally.

I say that if we are one day to be transcended by machines, so be it. No technology policy is going to put the brakes on evolution and change that. As to the dangers of uploading human consciousness, even the Dalai Lama once indicated he could imagine being reincarnated in a computer. So have a little faith, Bill. You may not like the future's eventual shape, but your grandchildren – whoever or whatever they are – will probably think it's just fine.

Kieran Cloonan, product development analyst, Private Business: Will the future look more like Star Trek or Blade Runner? For every great advance imagined by Gene Roddenberry, there is a darker correlative in P.K. Dick or William Gibson. Until now, both have seemed out of the range of the possible – but as Ray Kurzweil is to Bill Joy, so Joy is to me, and I am forced now to throw open the book on possibility.

Mel Schwartz, professor of physics, Columbia University, and 1988 Nobel laureate: The problems are real and are probably more serious and closer at hand than most of us imagine. Indeed, now that we have learned how to clone sheep and pigs and are on the verge of making immortality a fact, it is time to have a far-ranging discussion of these issues.

George Dyson, historian and author of Darwin Among the Machines: The main thing wrong with Joy's article is the title. We are not being replaced by machines; we are being incorporated into a machine. And it is too big, too different (dare one say alien?), and, perhaps, too intelligent for us to fathom. But the future will need us more than ever. I believe that many of the things the Kurzweils are hoping for will never happen. And I believe that many of the things the Kaczynskis are afraid of have already happened.

Just as it did not take long for high-speed computing to escape from the big labs to the desktop, soon enough it won't require millions of dollars to create designer organisms. A few credit cards and accounts with various suppliers might be sufficient. Who would have imagined, 30 years ago, that you could buy nanosecond-memory for a dollar a megabyte and order DNA over the phone for a dollar a base?

We tend to view evolution as a stable if branching process, with a tree-like structure. This whole structure could collapse or turn into something else. Who can predict which organism's germ line, on which branch, is going to be the main trunk in the (long-term) years ahead? We presume it will be ours. But it may be the germ line of some nondescript little critter that just happens to be the laboratory subject whose genome is the first to be fully communicated – two-way – into a very powerful CPU, where this otherwise unremarkable creature's evolution will advance by leaps and bounds as a result (with consequent benefits to its shareholders, but not necessarily to the rest of us).

Rich Gold, manager, Research in Experimental Documents, Xerox PARC: I think of nanotechnology as still about 30 to 50 years out. Robots seem less worrisome to me. But genetic engineering has already begun, it is here, and it is massive. I believe that it will make the computer revolution seem like a small blip on the screen, though, of course, computers made it possible. It seems to me that genetic engineering should be dealt with at about the same danger level as we treat plutonium. But the real problem seems to be the ethos of our tribe: "Here's some new technology, let's make some new stuff!" Of course, our tribe can't even write bug-free software yet.

Kristine Stiles, associate professor of art and art history, Duke University: Joy confesses to having just awakened to the possibility of rendering the human race obsolete through new technologies. But Joy's awakening is not heroic; it is symptomatic of the problem. By burying his head in the proverbial silicon, he willingly contributed to what he now describes as "undirected growth through science and technology," with utter disregard for the insights and research of his colleagues in the arts and humanities.

Stuart Johnston, senior technical writer, Iona Technologies: For the first time, someone has pulled together the strands of 21st-century science and scientific ethics and starkly illuminated the risk of pursuing knowledge at all costs. Bill Joy may consider himself a "generalist," but his background, interests, and eloquence perfectly qualify him to spread his message.

David Morton, research historian, IEEE History Center, Rutgers University: Joy quotes others who write fearfully of what the "elite" (who presumably control technology) might someday do to the rest of us, but is apparently blind to the fact that he himself is one of those elite. If Joy really wants to make a difference, he can learn from the nonengineering world what human progress really means. He can start to change the embedded culture of science and technology by teaching engineers and scientists how to refuse to participate in lines of inquiry that clearly do not improve the lives of ordinary people.

Neil Munro, reporter, National Journal: Right or wrong, Joy's article took nerve to write. Indeed, by challenging the idea that individual autonomy always leads to a greater good, he is challenging the orthodoxy of his class.

Tristram Metcalfe, architect and inventor, Metcalfe Associates: Bill Joy may be the poster child to describe our childhood's end, and we are in debt to his alarming mind.

Peter Tabuns, executive director, Greenpeace Canada: It might be easy to dismiss Joy if it weren't for the fact that the human track record with far simpler, less powerful technologies has not been very good. Currently, humans are engaged in changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and the climate of the planet with a very low-tech practice, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas. Even with evidence mounting daily that our use of these fuels is putting our world at risk, it is extraordinarily hard to turn things around. Our challenges with more complex technologies, which could have a huge impact even more quickly, are sobering. Thanks to Bill Joy for speaking up; now it is important for the rest of us to listen and act.

Amy Larkin, executive producer, Unleashed Inc.: Early in Bill Joy's brilliant, informative article, he quotes Ted Kaczynski: "It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines." I submit that we have already surrendered our air, land, water, and cultural heritage to ensure the freedom and well-being of one machine: the automobile.

Jonathan Parfrey, executive director, Physicians for Social Responsibility, LA chapter: After reading his article, our organization enthusiastically concurred that Bill Joy's insights need to be both publicized and rewarded. His vision of the future is simultaneously humbling, frightening, and, yet, poised potentially for magnificence. (PSR-LA has presented Joy with the 2000 Caldicott Award. – Ed.)

Russ Acker, graduate student, George Washington University: Bill Joy proved that there are actually still people in this field who think about more than their stock price. Like Danny Hillis and his call to look beyond the next quarter, Joy has done us all a great service by reminding us that our primary responsibility is to leave future generations with options.

James G. Callaway, CEO, Capital Unity Network: Just read Joy's warning in Wired – went up and kissed my kids while they were sleeping.

Stephen H. Miller, editor in chief, Competitive Intelligence Magazine: The not-very-joyous Bill Joy makes me think of a dinosaur whining because it's not going to be the final point on the evolutionary scale. If the universe has evolved humans because our intervention is necessary to produce the next step up on the developmental ladder, so be it. I trust the universe knows best where it's going and what the point of it all is.

Joy fears that if we simply move beyond Earth in order to survive, our nanotechnological time bomb will follow us. On the other hand, perhaps the coming "superior robot species" would see fit to terraform a planet or two that could be kept as a human reserve – like a galactic Jurassic Park.

Bob Metcalfe, founder of 3Com and inventor of Ethernet: I don't understand statements like "There are no brakes on new technology." Of course there are brakes. Much more often I wonder where the gas pedals are. Do you think people with new ideas are generally greeted with nourishing enthusiasm?

Christopher Arlaud, IT writer, Copenhagen: Upload me, Scotty. When it comes to the long-term future, I can't help feeling fatalistic. Should the chrysalis fear the butterfly? To conquer the cosmos, it seems obvious we'll have to meld mind with machine. If we are destined to end up as software, let's hope we're an open source species and not Microsoft mutants.

Michael Lyons, senior corporate counsel, US Surgical: It seems that people look at the increasing power of computers as some kind of evolutionary force of nature that can't be stopped. But that position is ridiculous. If all the people in the world died of a supervirus tomorrow, biological evolution would continue unabated. But upon the disappearance of humanity, computer "evolution" would stop dead in its tracks; the computers themselves can't "evolve" on their own – yet. So this is not an uncontrollable "force of nature"; it is something still within the control of human beings, and our moral and ethical concerns should guide our decisions.

Sherry Turkle, professor of the sociology of science, MIT: In my research with children and robotics, I have found that there are already things going on in our everyday experiences with technology that give us "objects to think with." The problem is that, while many people are having these experiences, most of them are not using them to reflect on the bigger picture – how technology is changing the way they think about their humanity.

We need to be concerned not just about what computers are becoming, but about what we are becoming, about what is most precious to us. I believe that if people were encouraged to reflect more about human uniqueness, the idea of being replaced by robots would seem more problematic.

Derek Becker, independent computer consultant: Humanity has always faced the possibility of extinction and it has always been valid. The dinosaurs didn't fare so well, and anyone saying they got off lucky by evolving into birds probably never had to do grief counseling with a tyrannosaurus. The fact that we now have our fingers on the Ragnarök button does not mean we should take the machine apart; it means that we should grow up. Growing up is much harder than taking machines apart – as anyone who has given a screwdriver to a fifth-grader knows – so a call to primevalism always seems to be the more acceptable solution.

Earl Hubbard, artist and author of Man as DNA: It has been conjectured by such anthropologists as Margaret Mead that mankind has so far used as little as 10 to 15 percent of its mental capacity to do all that it has done. It would now appear that, with the computer, mankind is evolving an electronic organism capable of carrying out the mundane tasks essential to sustain the life support system, the means of emancipating the 85 to 90 percent of our so-far-untapped potential.

With the advent of this emancipation, we are about to begin to learn who and what we really are. Having evolved an electronic life support system, we are not about to be replaced by it. We are entering an age of self-revelation. The possibilities mankind is now facing are truly awesome but by no means frightening.

Ian J. Kahn, consultant, Know Technology Group: Bill Joy's essay is why I read Wired. It is my hope that this article may mark the beginning of a new discipline. Isaac Asimov used to say that he did not write science fiction; rather he wrote "future histories." We as a species need to start thinking about our future history.

There is one addendum to Bill Joy's article that comes to mind. He lists, in footnote 3, Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. There was, however, a later modification of the three laws that could have an effect on these issues. In Robots and Empire, the Zeroth Law is extrapolated, and the other three laws modified accordingly: "A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."

Assuming such ethical constraints are possible, the Zeroth Law should be added to the discussion.

Richard S. Wallace, botmaster, Alice chat robot: I found it slightly disingenuous for Joy to announce that robotics is the next big threat to mankind, when most people working in robotics and AI are barely scratching out a living. We would all like to found successful companies like Sun and become wealthy philosophers. But the last thing we need right now is more government regulations or the kind of negative publicity that gives pause to our investors. Our small startups are hardly as threatening as nuclear proliferation.

Robert Charpentier, creative director, McKernan Packaging Clearing House: Though it is conceivable that humans will eventually create a computer that simulates self-awareness, even emotion, underneath you will always have pure, cold logic at the helm. If such a machine could achieve self-replicating independence, it would quickly get bogged down in the meaning of life, or lack of it.

Unlike humans, a computer would see the pointlessness of endless reproduction. It would probably extrapolate the possibility of vast expansion on a galactic scale and realize the only thing to be gained would be valueless geographical information. Pure logic would compel it to shut itself down. A truly independent, self-aware machine would quickly see its only reasonable role is to serve man.

Jim R. Davies, graduate student, intelligent systems and robotics, Georgia Institute of Technology: Joy says that the computational power will make smart robots possible by 2030. But much cutting-edge AI research doesn't even tax the abilities of our current computers. The bottleneck is more in our understanding of intelligence at a process level than in the raw computational muscle.

"Evil Robot Master": Bill Joy's article was remarkably prescient. Joy's fears that robots will someday rise up to rule the world and subjugate the human race are well founded and difficult to dispute.

Unfortunately for Mr. Joy, he seems to be oblivious to one critical fact: We already have. Ha ha ha!

Simon Evans, cultural industries consultant, Sheffield, UK: That gray goo is already here; it's been creeping over the planet for a while now. It's us.

C. David Noziglia, coordinator for India, Sri Lanka, and Nepal, Office of Public Diplomacy, Bureau of South Asia Affairs, US Department of State: Joy does mention the possibility of space travel, but one gets the feeling that his thoughts have been limited by what is possible on Earth. One could, however, see the possibility of travel beyond our beautiful planet, and recognize that immortality – or a life span far beyond the one or two centuries that may be the limit to our biological bodies – is a necessary prerequisite to travel over relativistic distances and speeds. Human-robotic symbiosis may be not just inevitable; it may be essential.

Tom Atlee, president, Co-Intelligence Institute: Painfully – and significantly – Joy seems to have no idea what to do about the unreflective forward motion of technology. But if citizens are given a chance to reflect powerfully together on what's happening to their lives and technology, they will provide clear, useful, and creative guidance about how to proceed. This is amply demonstrated by citizen councils such as the Danish technology panels described at www.co-intelligence.org/P-citizenCC.html and elsewhere.

Tim O'Reilly, president, O'Reilly & Associates: I am mindful of the farewell speech that Sir Joshua Reynolds gave to the Academy – his repudiation of a lifetime of academic art, and a call for a return to the passion of Michelangelo. Edmund Burke, who was in the audience, rose up and strode down the aisle, saying, "I've heard an angel speak." I could only wish that our own political leaders would be so moved by Joy's words.

Norman Lear, chair, Act III Communications: Joy's article was the most stimulating, provocative, and concerning piece I have read in the longest time. How can we get the next president to take on the thinking-through of the questions it raises as a necessary part of his leadership?

Wendy Zones Zito, technology leadership consultant: What can an ordinary person like me do about such a huge, overwhelming topic? I had a thought about a grassroots movement from ordinary citizens sending email to the White House. But what would we say?

Roger Frank, mathematics/computer science teacher, Ponderosa High School, Parker, Colorado: I've been using Joy's article in my classroom. I teach several AP classes with the "brightest of the bright" kids. It amazes me how, when we talk about the issues in the article or in Kurzweil's book, the kids just don't want to think about them. Yet they are the ones who will be most affected. They will be the ones that somehow have to control the genie once it's out of the bottle.

A class of schoolchildren, Piacenza, Italy: We want to thank Bill Joy for what he has done: fight against the economy of a lot of software houses and inform humanity of what is happening. His efforts haven't been useless because the article has crossed the ocean and reached us, boys and girls of 14 who live in a small village in the north of Italy. Discussing the subject with our teacher, we have grown anxious about the new technology, which is taking the human's place.

Trevor Goldstein, research analyst, The Arlington Institute: Bill Joy presents us with a paradox by stating that "ideas can't be put back in a box," while at the same time calling for "limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge." As the saying goes: Whatever government denies, free enterprise supplies. Even if we have a future international treaty limiting nano-related R&D, someone, somewhere is going to continue full-steam-ahead. Isn't it better to continue the R&D while at the same time devising countermeasures along the way?

Otto Kunst, radiologist, Caylor-Nickel Medical Center: Is it really practical to hope that moral strictures applied to the scientific profession will preclude all people within that profession from pursuing fields of knowledge that contain the potential for human extinction? Once one knows something is possible, it becomes impossible to contain that knowledge from eventually being developed and realized by someone, especially in a nontyrannical society.

Rupert Breheny, Web designer: It seems that with every Utopia comes its mirror image, Armageddon. Is either realistic? I must admit, though, what tugs at my conscience is that if I were given a sealed box and told not to open it, I'd have a hard time.

Dave Rosselle, marketing director, Web-Tec.com: Unfortunately, I believe the answer to the question concerning mankind's ability to put the genie back in the bottle has already been answered, ironically, by none other than HAL himself, who uttered those infamous words: "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that."

Al Brown, software engineer, Mentorware: If biotech is going to give us the ability to eradicate illness, why not start with mental illness? If we exploit that opportunity first, the rest of the threats articulated by Joy will be a lot less likely.

Eric Schmidt, CEO, Novell: I always worry that formulations about the future fail to account for the rise of new economies and the natural positive biases that humans have (i.e., we assume that human behavior will not change in the presence of accurately projected threats). I can imagine a number of positive ways that humanity in the future could and, in my view, will handle the technological threats Joy cites.

For example, you can imagine in an increasingly interconnected and educated world, with world population declining by 2050, the very real need for governments to become more peaceful and more people-centered as a natural result of their own self-interests in domestic issues. There is a chance that this could create a world where the spread of things Joy talks about are effectively banned.

Jim Gray, senior researcher, Microsoft Research: For some problems, there are no solutions. This may be one of them. If knowledge and technology are the independent entities that I think they are, they will propagate.

Marcel Levy, IT director, Reno Typographers: Joy mentions the motivations that would lead us to our fate: the quests for truth, wealth, and fame, or perhaps just the will to power that keeps rearing its ugly head. The ideas behind these motivations are much like the technologies he mentions: They replicate and modify themselves in endless ways.

Mark A. Foster, principal, Mark A. Foster & Associates: We have to think about Joy's essay as a competing idea in a broad marketplace of ideas about technology. To be successful, though, he needs to form a startup aimed at disseminating his message.

Chris S. Markham, release engineer, Adobe: Joy's argument is that as more and more enabling technologies are released into public consumption, each developer (individuals and corporations) needs to take stock of all the risks and not just the market demands. Unfortunately, I see this as a classic "prisoner's dilemma." If there's no agreement to take pause, the pace of build-and-release will continue with little evaluation of the consequences. There is a place and an imperative for the kind of thoughtful consideration of the future use of technologies that should be in all startup business plans. Because technology follows the money, venture capitalists can take the lead by asking the hard ethical questions along with the hard revenue-stream questions. The Valley needs to realize that Pandora's box can't be unopened with a v1.1 patch release.

David Isles, professor of mathematics, Tufts University: A start can be made with the individual technician. Let me remind you of the example of the famous mathematician Norbert Wiener who, in 1947, publicly refused to help Boeing with missile development because he felt that such devices would be used to kill innocent people. For this principled stand he was criticized as being unpatriotic.

Freeman Dyson, physicist and author of The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet: It is now obvious that the real dangers to human existence come from biotechnology and not from nanotechnology. If and when a self-reproducing robot is built, it will be using the far more powerful and flexible designs that biologists are now discovering.

There is a long and impressive history of biologists taking seriously the dangers to which their work is leading. The famous self-imposed 1975-1976 moratorium on DNA research showed biologists behaving far more responsibly than physicists did 30 years earlier. In addition, there is a strong and well-enforced code of laws regulating experiments on human subjects. The problems of regulating technology are human and not technical. The way to deal with these deep human problems is to build trust between people holding opposing views. Joy's article seems more likely to build distrust.

Larry Smarr, professor of computer science and engineering, University of California at San Diego: I was touched by Bill Joy's words and am spreading the discussion – my son at Stanford also read it and has been raving about it. I was one of the national organizers of the nuclear war education movement in the early 1980s and understand what is involved in trying to get society to look at unpleasant but imminent dangers. What is needed is a conference along the lines of the retreat at Asilomar, California, when the molecular biologists took it upon themselves to talk out the problems and possibilities of recombinant DNA and to come up with a set of rules for containment facilities, et cetera. The odds of something going really wrong were very remote and the cost of containment very great, but because the scientists took the trouble to have the discussion and exhibit self-restraint, the public gained confidence in them, and the field has flourished.

Jim Clark, founder of Silicon Graphics, Netscape, Healtheon, and myCFO: It is hard for me to see how any group of technologists or scientists can be large enough to be effective in halting some type of research that would ultimately be harmful to humanity. It could be argued that the ultimate things of potential harm would best be discovered or invented by a more enlightened group rather than someone with bad intentions. For example, Einstein was worried that if we didn't develop the bomb, the Germans would. I have a fundamental belief that the positive forces of human nature are more dominant than the negative ones. The world is becoming increasingly enlightened and part of the reason is that people like us have invented or otherwise enabled technologies that increase the dissemination of information across cultures. Still, I'd be happy to help Bill in his efforts, because he's got such a good mind and I respect his concerns.

Ray Kurzweil, inventor and author of The Age of Spiritual Machines: Bill Joy and I have dialogued on this issue both publicly and privately, and we both believe that technology will and should progress, and that we need to be actively concerned with the dark side. If Bill and I disagree, it's on the granularity of relinquishment that is both feasible and desirable.

Abandonment of broad areas of technology will only push them underground, where development would continue unimpeded by ethics and regulation. In such a situation, it would be the less stable, less responsible practitioners (e.g., the terrorists) who would have all the expertise.

I do think that relinquishment at the right level needs to be part of our ethical response to the dangers of 21st-century technologies. By itself, fine-grained relinquishment won't solve these problems, but it will give us more time to develop the necessary defensive technologies.

Vernor Vinge, author, A Deepness in the Sky: Granularity of relinquishment is a nice way to think about all this. There may also be categories or levels. Categories of relinquishment that require nonrelinquished enforcement are probably bad. Hopefully the debate will continue into post-human forums :-).

John Gilmore, cofounder, Electronic Frontier Foundation: If we outlaw nanotech, it'll just go underground. We won't ever get a consensus of everyone on earth to not do it. And then the rest of us will be unprepared when one of the secret laboratories makes a breakthrough and uses it against us (whether in commerce or in war). We could build a worldwide police state to find and track and monitor and imprison people who investigate these "forbidden" technologies. That would work about as well as the drug war, and throw the "right to be left alone" basis of our civilization out the window besides.

My guess is that the answer is sort of like what Silicon Valley has been doing already – agility and speed. If you learn to move ahead faster than the problems arise, then they won't catch up with you.

Diane Wills, software engineer, Hewlett-Packard: At the very least, let's bring in people from all walks of life on discussions of this nanotechnology, or the projected integration of humans and robots. Is this what people really want?

Jeff Klein, freelance digital photographer: I, for one, plan on rejecting the new technology completely and living a tranquil life in some peaceful mountainous country – as soon as I can get this damn chip out of my brain.

Samantha Atkins, software architect: Forgo the possibilities? After working all of my life to make precisely such possibilities a reality, and much of it quite consciously? No way. And I will fight with every means at my disposal not to be stopped. Not only because of my own drive and desires, but because I honestly believe that only in transforming itself does humanity have a chance of a long-term future. Yes, it will be a changed humanity. But at least we and our descendants will have a future – and one that doesn't cycle back to the Dark Ages.

Gregg Easterbrook, editor at The New Republic and BeliefNet.com and author of Beside Still Waters: Joy cites me in a way that suggests I have called critics of transgene agriculture, including Amory and L. Hunter Lovins, "Luddites." It's true The New York Times used that word in the headline of an article by me, but I sure didn't use the word in the text. I definitely do not think people who oppose genetically engineered agriculture are Luddites, and constantly note there is reason to worry that transgene technology is not being properly regulated. But we've long since removed crop plants from their natural developmental trajectory. Almost no seed the world's farmers grow today, including nonengineered crops, could survive if tossed onto a field, because most have already artificially diverged from their evolutionary path. And the chance of some runaway error seems extremely slight. The besting of one species by another does happen, as Joy's article correctly notes, but never as a runaway – the new top-dog species is always brought into balance by competition from something else. Conceptually, the only runaway genetic property ever to exist may be human intellect.

It seems to me that transgene agriculture is morally essential, given that population growth will continue at least until roughly 2050. Projections show that world agricultural output must increase 40 percent in the next 25 years. Improving yield from existing land appears possible either via dramatic increases in use of farm chemicals (which may not work; Iowa master-farmer experiments suggest chemicals are at or near the point of diminishing returns) or through crop engineering. Based on what we know, at least, what realistic choice does the world have but to tamper even further with the plant kingdom?

When it comes to gene-engineering of people and to the chance of artificial life, I mainly agree with Joy's premise and feel that the world is being complacent about huge errors waiting to be made.

Anthony Trewavas, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Edinburgh: Everyone without prejudice against technology knows it is easier for scientists to conjure plants to make more food than to get the rest of the world to evenly share out what it grows. Technological solutions are necessary and must include genetic modification if third-world scientists and farmers request it.

Burton Shane, retired computer consultant and adjunct professor, Oakton Community College: Evil's strongest weapons are not bombs and technology but fear and poverty. If you hinder technological and scientific advance, you doom uncounted millions.

Kevin Kelly, editor at large, Wired: Our society lacks a major feedback loop for controlling technology: a way to gauge intended effects from actual effects. If we can accurately extend our intentions out into the future, then our technology will be more humane. But we have to have a way to compare our initial intentions with actual effects later on. We should devise an Intended Effects Impact Report to be issued with each new technology. What do we expect from X in 5 years, 10 years, or one generation? Then measure it in five years, or one generation, and evaluate the results of X. We'll be way off base at first. But if we reward those processes that best anticipated the results and best prepared us, and use them to evaluate other technologies, we'll get much better at it.

Robert C. Baker, printing supervisor and writer, The Village Voice: Perhaps the scariest aspect of Joy's article is that all of these dangerous new technologies are profit-driven, and now, in the midst of a US boom, the pursuit of wealth is a sacrosanct right to which all others must yield. There may be hope for our salvation, though, as provided by the Amish ("Look Who's Talking," Wired 7.01, page 128). Their stand is not so much against technology as against anything that threatens the cohesion of their community. A trip to Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, will convince anyone that a good life can be had even if the community as a whole deems certain technologies to be off-limits.

Steven J. Richardson, Unix tools programmer, Stanford University: I remember reading that the Native Americans, before changing their lifestyle in some fashion, tried to foresee the consequences of any decision for the next six generations. Whether or not this is true, the idea is clearly sound. We advance, market report by market report, quarterly earnings by quarterly earnings, to a future that we are largely not choosing.

Patrick Hassett, planner and policy analyst, City of Pittsburgh: What is called for here is a collaborative and multifaceted response to the threatening prospects of robotics, genetics, and nanotechnology convergence – one that pursues technological relinquishment, environmental containment, and countertechnology deployment tactics in an integral strategy to minimize the threats posed by their convergence. However, this is no easy task for a species that Joy aptly describes as having "so much trouble managing – or even understanding" itself, and a regenerative species at that.

Chris Alexander, emeritus professor, University of California at Berkeley, and chair of PatternLanguage.com: A few months ago, I went to an evening discussion at which the two speakers, and the audience, were invited to speculate about the most far-out things they could imagine, in society and technology, and what the future might hold: how – in a word – the future might be different from the present.

The discussion and the audience comments were entirely dominated by techno thinking. The issues covered included new materials, new forms of social organization, new relationships between the sexes, new forms of gene-splicing and gene control, biological warfare, and biological control systems. All this was predictable and interesting. What was not predictable to me was the remarkably and exclusively nonhuman or inhumane focus of the discussion. Ethics were not discussed. The sense of right and wrong was not discussed. Consciousness was not discussed. The intense search now going on in physics to find and recognize consciousness or mind as part of the universe was not discussed. God was not discussed, in any of his or her manifestations.

In short, among an audience of whiz-kid scientists and technologists, probably coming largely from Berkeley, Palo Alto, and San Francisco, the preoccupation with palmtops, gadgets, light pens, radio laptops, and a host of far more wild technological things had all but pushed thought about the major human concerns into the background. It was indeed like being in a roomful of whiz kids – schoolkids – not yet mature enough to grasp for the ungraspable, or to focus their thinking on the matters that underlie every human heart.

That, I believe, is what Bill Joy has been trying to say. Cool is not so cool. Technics is not enough, and if taken in isolation will be dangerous. To be leaders in the world, computer scientists and creators of technology need to, and must, wake up to embrace a view of the world which is moral, based on ultimate realities of cosmology. No matter how hard it is to embrace these things clearly, to find a worldview in which they play the central role, human existence cannot make sense without them. When will the Valley, which has brought so much to the world, and which leads on so many fronts, become a leader intellectually, in the human things that matter?

Joyce Saler, origami artist: Do you remember the scene in The Wizard of Oz in which the wizard sadly admits to Dorothy: "I am not a bad man. I am a bad wizard"? Let's hope that Bill Joy challenges scientists of the future to be good men and not bad wizards.

Chuck Densinger, senior group manager for systems development, Target: Humans too quickly adapt to and adopt the bizarre and consider it normal. Viewed from the perspective of evolutionary time, the last 150 years are a freakish mutation, a kind of cancerous explosion of technology that extends conscious intelligence to evolutionarily unpredictable – perhaps meaningless – extremes. I love science. Joy has left me feeling like this is the final, intense high of some transcendental hallucinogen taken in one last, toxic dose.

The Very Reverend Charles Hoffacker, Saint Paul's Episcopal Church, Port Huron, Michigan: Bill Joy calls us "to limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge." His invitation is a bold one, and likely to meet with much resistance, but he is right in seeing what he calls "relinquishment" as the "only realistic alternative" in the face of likely developments in several fields of technology.

Another way to understand relinquishment is to see knowledge as but one component of something higher: namely, wisdom. The other component of wisdom is love. This love is not an emotion, but a matter of choosing certain goods over others. Humanity's survival and welfare is a good preferable to the increase of technological ability.

Stewart Brand, futurist, author, and founder of Global Business Network: Everyone agrees there's an iceberg – the question is, will it hit the ship, miss the ship, or replace the ship? Or maybe – unthinkable! – the ship will slow down and study the iceberg for a while.

Undo
Collision Course: In "Dr. Strangelet: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Big Bang" (Wired 8.05, page 254), physicist Frank Wilczek was incorrectly characterized as suggesting that the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider could produce "a chain reaction, that would consume everything, everywhere." Wilczek made no such suggestion, nor does he agree with it. Information on his actual conclusions can be found at xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9910333. … Budgetary Constraints: Apple's advertising expenses increased from $152 million in 1998 to $208 million in 1999 ("Self Promotion," Wired 8.05, page 108). … Slice: According to the official rules of golf, a golf ball must weigh 1.62 ounces or less, and its diameter must be 1.68 inches or more (Wired Golf, Wired 8.05, page 171).

Here’s The Thing With Ad Blockers

We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help us keep the lights on. So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per week for an ad-free version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our journalism. We’d really appreciate it.